Updates to List Pages

Today (Dec 6) we are announcing an update to the List pages on the IMDb desktop experience. This update is part of the broader site changes announced recently (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/upcoming-changes-to-several-imdb-features-du6man1opd5q0). After in-depth discussion and examination, we have decided to simplify the features and functionality for lists. We have merged “compact view” and list editing into a single Edit experience. In that one view, you can now modify your text and add, copy, delete and move items. We have also pulled List actions (edit, export, settings) together into a 1-click menu (the 3 vertical dots on the top right of the page). You will now also find two new options in the Refine menu: ‘In Theaters’ and ‘Keywords.’ Tech constraints on the new system prohibit us from continuing to support drag-and-drop from the Edit view; we appreciate your understanding. For more information about Lists, see the IMDb Help Center.

Up until recently I loved that I was able to change the order of films in a list to customize to how I wanted it. I did this by dragging the the movie to a new spot in the order. I'm not sure why but this function was removed, now I have to type in the spot on the list where I want it to be. It was a lot easier before. Can anything be done to fix this?

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled IMDb lists.

I used to have fun casually making silly lists for myself, as well as watchlists, schedules and Best of Year lists for my work as a buff and critic.Fist off, the format gobbles up memory like an SOB. This is bad for me, because I make long lists and have RAM issues. The pages take so long to load, render and process activity, and sometimes crash. I have to be careful when I scroll, because doing that often freezes my computer solid for 2-4 minutes, then slows it to a crawl afterwards.I blame the above issue on there now being title buttons and rating abilities in the editing phase. Why? This essentially ensures that the list items are embedded upon their addition, and that managing them from there is hell.That blasted checkbox!!! Like an incompetent dictator, it rules list arrangement with its idiocy, joining with "Change" buttons to refresh already slow-acting pages to shift things. Changing an item's position requires selecting that box, typing the item's new rank, and selecting "Save List Order". You no longer drag the item up or down, and change only one's position at a time. It's some of the most amateur and perfunctory arrangement formatting I've ever worked with.I'm too worn out and angry to even try going into what I think about typing notes under my items. Jst rest assured that everything about the list-making process is much, much, much worse. It feels like a nightmare, quite frankly. For years, making lists has been my main connection to IMDB, and now O'm fixing to take my business to Letterboxd. IMDB, return the old format, improve the new, or quietly go to hell. If not, I at least got to vent as publicly as I wanted to.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled IMDb lists.

I just started using Lists, then immediately the drag and drop feature was removed. As a programmer myself, I could opt for the lazy route and just remove features, or could add a second editing page with different tools instead of trying to do it all on one page. It is really disappointing to have things taken away for no good reason.

It appears that the only SORT options in EDIT mode are "Date Added" and "List Order". These are NOT SUFFICIENT to manage my WATCHLIST. Particularly "Your Rating" and "Release Date" and "Popularity" and "IMDb Rating" --all of which I use to manage my WATCHLIST.

I am one of the multi-decade users of IMDB.com, so I have years of ratings and lists. But without being able to SORT my WATCHLIST in EDIT mode, I might as well use the "Want to See" button on rotten tomatoes.

IMDB took down compact mode for no apparent reason. My guess is to make people click on the Amazon instant video of course they could just include a small hyperlink in compact mode. Lots of people have issues with this but IMDB doesn't seem to be acknowledging anyone's complaint about this.

There is a semi-solution mentioned earlier in this thread but it's a pain and you kinda have to be versed a little in computer science lol So disappointing they took away this feature. I tried to update my lists and view others but it's no fun anymore.

I'm probably going to cancel my Amazon Prime membership due to the fact they made this so much worse just to cater to making Amazon more money. And they didn't have to take away features to do this.

That semi-solution may require minuscule familiarity with computer science to understand, but it doesn't require such to install and use.

Please bear in mind that computer science is oriented around not only algorithms but complementary paradigms such as queues, stacks, structures, templates, sets, matrices, search trees, recursion, logic, events, hooks, interrupts, pipelines, execution contexts, threads, registers, cache and RAM, among other things (beyond what would be learned at the undergraduate level). Understanding of much of those is not necessary to understand the semi-solution in question.

Whenever I look at my lists, I always use the compact view so as to be able to see everything at once. The other views are clunky and really not good for looking at the details of all the entries. But now the only views I can click on are grid view and these massive blocks in detail view. Neither of this offer a convenient way to actually see the information of everything in the list.

Since the lists' recent update I am not able to create a shortcut to a particular title, as I used to do before with "?start=" path. Is there any alternative to that or is the old way planned to be restored any time soon?

@MatthiasSince you haven't received a reply in 12 hours, perhaps my reaction is not uncommon: I have no idea what you're asking. Where would this shortcut be? Where did you type "?start="; and by path do you mean URL?Are you trying to create a link in a list/title description?

That is exactly what I mean, I used to put an URL in the list description to navigate - just like many list-makers do by adding page numbers to jump to a particular section of the list (for example: imdb.com/list/lsxxxxxxx/?page=3). I used a similar method to create a shortcut to a particular position in the list by adding "/?start=position number" extension to the list's URL. In the effect the list would start with an indicated position (I used that to mark the first movie I watched on a particular year, to be able to get to it in one click. For example: adding ?start=10 to the URL created a shortcut to the 10th movie in the list).

The thing is that since the recent updates, the URL extension ceased to work that way and adding "?start=" does nothing (just refreshes the list and gets me back to the first position again).

Hence my question: is there any option to create a shortcut to a particular movie in the list, just as it can be done with pages?

@Matthias, I would like to point out that @Dan Dassow, is not IMDb staff. He's a very helpful and experienced fellow user of IMDb, and has told us before that he has no extra insights about whether something is a bug or a feature.

I would encourage you to post a separate thread about this (seemingly former) feature, reporting it as a bug, and see if you get an official response.

Using "/?start={position_number}" extension to index to a specific item in an IMDb list was an undocumented feature that required editing a link (also known as a link hack). From what I can tell, the IMDb technical staff has been trying to move away from link hacks being useful.

Also, as bderoes states above, I am a long time user of IMDb and not an IMDb staff member.

Hi, bderoes. Sometimes "customers" do have extra insights, though: such as whenever staff members let some of them in on the a little bit of extra information. We never know who gets picked, unless that person tells us. The consultation is kind of done on a "to whom it shall concern" basis.

On side note, I do believe there are some retired IMDb developers present on this forum, but I'm not sure. There is one converser in particular, without an "Official Rep", "Staff Member", "Employee" or "Champion" decal, who knows a lot about information technology including in regards to IMDb.

On another side note, Dan Dassow has been an active participant for a long time, possibly for longer than when his IMDb user account was created. (I'm on the flip side, as while I did create my IMDb user account a long time ago, I only started contributing heavily in the past few years; and to reveal another little-known fact, I've never created an IMDb list or submitted an IMDb user review before, so when I "like" (upvote) your GS posts, I don't necessarily have a hands-on experience with the subject matter. I've only ever read lists, exported lists, used the RSS feed feature and read user reviews.)

I pointed out Dan's non-official status because when I read his reply to Matthias, and especially Matthias' reply to him, I felt that Matthias was interpreting it as an official response. So I didn't want him to read more into the response than was warranted.

I can see the value in the feature Matthias described, and would hate for him to give up on it too quickly. Even if he'd gotten an official person saying what Dan did, I'd encourage Matthias to post it as a thread (but then as an Idea, since the "problem" had already been addressed.)

I meant no disrespect to Dan, and he "Like"d the post where I pointed out his status, so I don't think he interpreted any disrespect from me.

Jeorj, thanks again for "Like"ing so many of my posts. As I've said before: if only so I receive a copy of them myself. (On the flip side, I'm glad you're the only one who's so generous, or the inbox would be much too cluttered.)

What a mess. Been to one of my ever growing lists today. Reaching almost the limit I decided to move some to another list based on genre. While I can filter by the genre I want the there is no way to select them. I even tried EDIT. Still no joy. STUPID STUPID STUPID.

As a regular contributor in correcting the many many mistakes in imdb I am going on STRIKE. No more contributions from ME until compact view with select and move to other/new lists is returned.

I suggest everyone else who is as pissed off as I am with imdb do the same. Let imdb stew in it's own juice of millions of mistakes. GO ON STRIKE. NO MORE EDITING.

See below, its probably the real reason why they won't bring back compact mode. They probably made some deal with Amazon just so they could make more money. But not sure why they can't add a hyperlink in compact mode to Amazon. My only guess is it seems more subtle this way. I'm going to cancel my prime membership.

Hopefully now with the year over and more people pulling up their lists to update it will voice their issues with this. But I think most are giving up and just using a Word document instead or another movie site. Nobody wants to look at or edit a list of more than 100 movies now. IMDB just screwed their most passionate film fans.

@ChrisIf Amazon were requiring the big link to view/buy each title, then surely the primary target would be the WATCHLIST, which has no such display. Nor does the CHECK-INS, which is supposed to be about sharing your preferences on social media (which I don't understand, because you can share any of your lists there?)

Instead, Watchlist and Check-ins have a tiny icon buried atop the poster. That icon would easily fit on a single line per title Compact View for lists. So your conspiracy theory doesn't hold much water for me.

If I used Watchlist as a list of things I wanted to watch, I would want all the Showtimes/ Buy Me information right there on that page. (Instead, it's my parking garage for lists being created from searches or sorted lists. Because we lost Compact View, any copy/move that I don't want to hand-select, and/or that I don't want to happen in List Order, must go through the Watchlist.)

If I were the liaison from Amazon to IMDb, I'd be all over the Watchlist functionality, pushing for ways to promote its use, making sure it was still prominent on the Reference View, checking that people didn't abandon it after the Dec 6 update (due to reasons in the paragraph above), and insuring it advertises the Amazon links properly. I don't think there is much in the way of smart product management happening for the Watchlist right now.

@JeorjAmazon uses IMDb quite a bit on its Video streaming titles, extracting plot synopsis, cast and average rating, while using the IMDb logo (sample video title, but no link back to stepchild IMDb). And many of the IMDb hyperlinks to Amazon lead nowhere useful, which is annoying, making both IMDb and Amazon look bad.

Yes, Amazon uses IMDb's information, provided that a given item is cataloged on IMDb. Most items of the pertinent kind are. There is no doubt about that. It's still bothersome that for a given item, there is no hyperlink to the corresponding profile of the movie, series, episode or video game. Now I wouldn't expect there to be a link in the Amazon app for smartphones or entertainment-specific devices, but definitely the website should, at least for the sake that Amazon and IMDb have a partnership as opposed to being completely separate from each other. Without a hyperlink, a lot of IMDb content receives less exposure on the world-wide web. It might not matter, though. I get the feeling that IMDb is sinking in SEO rankings, perhaps beat out by Wikipedia. The trivia pages and title FAQ pages are horribly neglected, and additionally they just aren't well-referenced throughout the Web.

As for the hyperlinks from IMDb to Amazon, the only ones that seem useful are the "Watch Now" references, complete with option indicators (Amazon Video rental price, Amazon Video buy price, Amazon Prime Video availability or disc availability, but notably a "Free with Ads" indicator is missing). The hyperlinks that point to an Amazon item search are absurdly unrefined and should probably not even appear on an IMDb page unless pertinent search results are guaranteed. The ads are not so bad, but they are ads, and you may not know where they will take you, or sometimes they hog up the page. Again, it's as though IMDb owes Amazon this acceptance of a smaller piece of the good pie. I just wish I knew why.

@JeorjEven the video links (IMDb to Amazon) are sometimes wrong. I used Snow White (1937) as an example in my post immediately above because I had stumbled on that video link being wrong, and mentioned it in a thread about adding dvd links. My reply was then forked off into an idea:https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/how-to-report-bad-amazon-video-on-disc-linksand they also fixed the bad dvd link (it formerly went to a more recent version of SW), which is pretty amazing, since I didn't mention it was SW, so they actually followed the links I provided.

Until IMDb gets better, maybe it's a good thing that Amazon doesn't link to it yet. (We had another bout of Error 500 this week when you tried to access any list other than Watchlist or Checkins).

Amazon links are useless to me. As a member who lives in S.E. Asia buying from Amazon is NOT an option. Last time I did I was faced with an over 100% import duty. Please don't get me wrong I am not saying Amazon links should not be there but that they should not be there to sacrifice IMDb list functionality and usability. Right now we have title lists that cannot be edited/moved based upon genre. Surely there must be a way to do both. If IMDB is so clever why don't they take on some of the users suggestions and give us back compact mode AND have hyperlinks in it to Amazon. That should satisfy both camps. Or are IMDb like a stubborn child and would rather smash the toy than share it.

It so hard to edit list order in new lists editing now, in functionality new interface of list editing is like switching from Windows 10 to DOS. I really need possibility to drag items inside lists... Like look, here is list of my 500 all-time favorite movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls000036249/ , if I want to add some new one here, now I can't compare it during the process, I need to open few pages at same time for checking it and saving and re-editing list several times, but even worse: I want to keep certain movies in the beginning and end of each 100 within 500, so now it requires 100 times more time to do it, it just take nearly an hour to add 3 new movies there, it is very disappointing, now I guess I will be not doing it anymore :(

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled IMDb lists.

@Igor BalashovI agree that ordering lists is very difficult now. Hopefully IMDb will address that soon.

I'm glad to have seen your list. You have a very international mix, and the Refine feature does not provide a way to select certain countries or languages. You might want to provide links and/or instructions for how a user can search your list. Here are instructions I wrote:http://www.imdb.com/list/ls027342264/Feel free to copy, adapt or refer to them.

A feature has been taken away while looking at different lists. The seen/not seen list that would say, for example, I've seen 5 out of 20 movies. Why was this taken away? I actually really liked it. I don't get why things keep getting removed from this site.

This is still supported. Please click the "Refine" link near the top of any list and navigate to "You and This List" then filter by "Titles I rated", for example from http://www.imdb.com/list/ls027959285/

Yes but you cannot do this in edit mode. It is therefore impossible to edit only seen movies, certain genre, or certain years etc. All this was previously available in compact mode which has been removed by IMDb. Functionality of this site is getting close to ZERO.

You can print from edit mode, although this still includes small thumbnail posters.

If you want to print pure text content from a list then our recommendation is to export it and print from Excel or Google Docs or any compatible software. Click the three dots in the upper right of any list page and choose "Export" from the menu which appears:

Load the file into your preferred software and you can pick exactly which fields to include in the print; much more flexible than any option we could offer directly in the interface (and with many more data fields available).

If all you need is the title, then either Compact view from Advanced Title Search or this bookmarklet, or the Seen functionality described here give you 3 solutions to viewing a list in short form. (Beware that Seen will display the full list in 1 page, so a long list will take a long time to load, and ATS has no option to sort by List Order.)

I, too, miss Compact Mode and hope they bring it back soon, along with drag & drop order change. But these solutions help me in the meantime.

This is the 9th working day after New Year's day. It's time to review the post-update (Dec 6) bug list. If anyone thinks something here is fixed, please comment. If I missed adding something to the list which hasn't been fixed, please comment.

@IMDb: if any of these are now "features" and we need to move them to the Suggestions list, please comment.

missing 4 columns from export of lists and checkins: directors, you rated, release date, url; added back dir, rel and url, but not in original sequence; working on adding ratings

fixed: missing list of lists

fixed: description display issues (&, +, -, line break issues)

description display issues (&, +, -, line break issues) on Image list

view count was removed; now it's back but vast quantity of counts are missing; will it show the "in last 3 days" or similar count? View count does not appear to advance? "in last week count" is 0?

Still do not the see the ability to format text in my description box such as colors like: [red]RED[/red] or [blue]BLUE[/blue] or [orange]ORANGE[/orange], etc.Odd because [b]BOLD[/b], [purple]PURPLE[/purple] & [i]ITLAIC[/i] still work.

Edit mode, reordering all titles but one, the unaltered title does not retain its position

We have a question on this one ... from an implementation perspective, we currently sendjust the items whose positions were updated to the server. And on the server,we update their positions in ascending order (so the item with the lowest"new" position is updated first and so on).

We could consider updating the "new" positionsin descending order. This way, an item that is unaltered will only be bumpeddown by the number of items whose "new" positions are less than/equalto the unaltered item's current position. So in the example below,Westworld would be placed at 2 instead of 4 after reordering. However, thiswould also mean that Suits, which we changed to 2, will be placed at 3.

We would love to get some extra clarity to see if the secondapproach is closer to what you prefer?

Yours is not an example of what I meant (and this was MY bug report, not just my cataloging someone else's). But to answer your question, the way your screenshots show the results is how it works now, no? And that's fine. Your proposed alternative is that despite specifying that I want Suits at 2, it would land at 3; NO, that would NOT be ok.

Here's an example of the bug I reported. I had a list of (let's say) 20 titles, and when I determined their new order within a spreadsheet, all but item 11 had new positions. So I entered the new positions for all 19 titles at the same time, and when the results came back, the title formerly at 11 was wildly elsewhere.

To reproduce, I'll make a 5-item list:Now I want to numericize the titles; #2 is already Second Chorus, so it doesn't need to move. So I enter this:

And after saving, get this:And I actually entered the number 2 in the position for Second Chorus. But the algorithm ignored that, and shuffled things one at a time, with poor results, especially given that 1 title came out of 1st position, and only 1 title needed to replace it.

You say:

we currently send just the items whose positions were updated to the server. And on the server,we update their positions in ascending order (so the item with the lowest "new" position is updated first and so on).

But I typed in all the position numbers. Did you not send the 2 for Second Chorus to the server because it was the same as originally displayed?

What if you just take them in their original sequence?round 0: EBACDround 1: BACDE (move the first changed title, E)round 2: ABCDE (move the 2nd changed title, A)now C & D are already at their destination.B landed in the correct position.

I don't know how much worse it gets when you're only moving 5 titles out of 1000, or if my example is somehow special. Surely there are academic articles out there for how best to do such things. I have 3 volumes of Knuth collecting dust in the next room; I think there are 2 more since then...

Add the Refine sort options to Edit mode to facilitate Move To selection and List Order changes.

alternate: 15.

Edit mode: return ability to submit title or name additions to list by their full URL

Edit mode, place a duplicate Add Title box at the top of the page

list edit: provide floating menu to take us to the move/copy/reorder options NEAR the TOP or to the navigation/add title NEAR the BOTTOM of the edit page, not to the physical top/bottom

list edit, add title: as part of the drop-down results, provide a link that would show full search results in a new tab, namely the same results we'd get from the search box at the top of every page, but without having to reenter the search

Edit, Add title, show thumbnail image with title matches, and make results box bigger to accommodate that.

To List of Lists, add to menu for each title: Export and Settings.

Provide an easy way to add ATS search results to a list. Maybe use a captcha to confirm it's not an automated spammer.

ATS should show creator's title comments/descriptions from list on detailed search results. (Remember we can apply ATS url to lists not our own.)

ATS sort option of List Order so we can see the position number in a compact list of 250 again.

@Denise (and everyone)The description markup features you (and I) want is on the Suggestions list at #10. As I stated in that item, the link you provide is now dead, and I'd like to flesh out the missing features from the memories of participants here.

Using Colors [red]...[/red] Set the [red]color[/red] to red. Set the color to red. [green]...[/green] Set the [green]color[/green] to green. Set the color to green. [blue]...[/blue] Set the [blue]color[/blue] to blue. Set the color to blue. [orange]...[/orange] Set the [orange]color[/orange] to orange. Set the color to orange. [black]...[/black] Set the [black]color[/black] to black. Set the color to black. [white]...[/white] Set the [white]color[/white] to white. Set the color to white. [yellow]...[/yellow] Set the [yellow]color[/yellow] to yellow. Set the color to yellow. [purple]...[/purple] Set the [purple]color[/purple] to purple. Set the color to purple.

IconsBasic:

[4eyes]

[afro]

[angel]

[angry]

[argue]

[aura]

[bigeek]

[biggrin]

[bigrazz]

[birthday]

[blah]

[blush]

[bounce]

[caver]

[chatty]

[cheers]

[cloak]

[clown]

[colorful]

[confused]

[cool]

[cry]

[dead]

[devil]

[eek]

[embarrassed]

[explode]

[eyes]

[frozen]

[glasses]

[gonemad]

[gum]

[hehe]

[hide]

[iloveu]

[interest]

[joker]

[kiss]

[laugh]

[newbie]

[ninja]

[no]

[noir]

[none]

[odd]

may take an hour or more to add the rest of these

[out] [party] [popcorn] [rainbow] [razz]

[roll] [roll2] [royal] [sad] [shy]

[sigh] [sleep] [smile] [smoke1] [snow]

[sword] [trendy] [uhoh] [upset] [wave]

[weird] [white] [wild] [wink] [winkgrin] [yes]

Animals:[animal] [bunny] [butterfly] [cat] [cats]

[dog] [flowercat] [nicebat] [pig] [spider] [whitecat]

Confused:[change] [conf1] [conf2] [conf3] [devilconf]

[giveup] [help] [hmm] [mjeyds] [wazup]

Cool:[cool1] [cool2] [cooldance] [cooldance2] [coolmonkey]

[hasta] [trum]

Happy:[2face] [3c] [3eyes] [blink] [clap]

[hat] [hippy] [sombrero] [square] [wave3] [xmas]

Jumping:[jump1] [jump10] [jump2] [jump3] [jump4]

[jump5] [jump6] [jump7] [jump8] [jump9]

Love:[love1] [love10] [love2] [love3] [love4]

[love5] [love6] [love7] [love8] [love9]

Sad:[sad1] [sad2] [sad3] [sad4] [sad5]

[sad6] [sad7] [sad8]

Evil Grin:[evil1] [evil10] [evil2] [evil3] [evil4]

[evil5] [evil6] [evil7] [evil8] [evil9]

Angry:[angry1] [angry10] [angry2] [angry3] [angry4]

[angry5] [angry6] [angry7] [angry9] [flameangry]

Fighting:[fight1] [fight10] [fight2] [fight3] [fight4]

[fight5] [fight6] [fight7] [fight8] [fight9]

Miscellaneous:[blush2] [hairrise] [listicon] [misc1] [misc2]

[misc3] [sleep1] [tongue] [tongue2]

The above graphics are used with kind permission from Planetsmilies.com.

Saved 73 times between October 2, 2002 and March 15, 2017.Note:This calendar view maps the number of timeswww.imdb.com/help/boards/markupwas crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated. More info in the FAQ.

IMDb Message Boards AnnouncementThe IMDb message boards were disabled on February 20, 2017. This included the Private Message system. IMDb is passionately committed to providing innovative ways for our hundreds of millions of users to engage and communicate with one another. We will continue to enhance our current offerings and launch new features in 2017 and beyond that will help our customers communicate and express themselves in meaningful ways.

@everyone: I'll post links back here when I'm done with all of them, and it's the next thing I'll do.

@anyone: #9 is "need method to change TV service provider for On TV accuracy" and I know nothing about this, so I couldn't respond to any questions if posed. Can someone help me here? If possible, go ahead and post it as a Problem per Col above, and Comment back here when done.

Many of us miss Compact View/Mode for various reasons. Compact View and/or its features are mentioned several times on the Suggestions list, but not all the CV features are detailed. I'm going to attempt to list the features I miss. Please comment if I omit something important.

One line per title, NO thumbnail image

250 titles on a page

The Columns should be:

Checkbox to select the title for copy/move/delete

Position number, editable

Icon for description/comments of list creator. Mouseover would display those comments. Perhaps click on icon for pop-up edit window.

Ability to Move To, Copy To, Delete, Save List Order as we have now in Edit Mode.

Drag/drop to change position (previously in prior Edit Mode, but Compact View could replace old and new Edit mode with this feature list. However, it might need to be a separate feature, depending on processing power needed, especially for so many titles on the same page.)

@Dan Dassow, ChampionAnother thought/request for the Tutorial: Workarounds: A table of contents at the root message. Namely the headings you created, but links to the post within the Tutorial thread. Here they are:

Name (people) lists: I don't find the Like button on these. Didn't they used to have it? Will we be able to Like a people list anytime soon? (sorry if this is covered elsewhere; I didn't have the energy to search through 8 pages)

Hi everyone. Here is a list of updates we've made over the past week (Jan 19):

We added pagination to image lists to fix an issue causing browser crashes with large lists

We increased the number of items you can see in a list (up to 250 per page) to help users with long lists move items around since drag-and-drop is no longer available

Bug fix: If you have a list of 1000+ titles and add another, the total count is now updated correctly

Bug fix: We fixed an issue that was causing problems for Kindle Fire users who wanted to reorder list items

Already implemented:

Improved list item validation. You can no longer add invalid items, for example, if you accidentally mistype an image ID you will get an error so you know to correct it. Also, if an image is no longer available, you have the ability to delete it so that your list item count is accurate [DONE]

Improved the list creation form so that it accepts & and + (for list name and description) [DONE]

It looks like that was only changed for edit mode. If they would please increase it to 250 for viewing purposes that would be a step in the right direction. Hopefully they can reinstate compact mode after that.

If we have to move 1 title at a time to ensure its location, then we need to refresh (potentially multiple pages) after each move. With a longer Edit view, that means longer refresh time, and needing to use ctrl-F and other keyboard shortcuts to get to the place on the page that you need. This implies that we need an option to display only 100 titles in Edit mode.

It also implies that we still need drag/drop! As I recall, it was only 50 titles/page for that view, probably because things get wobbly with dynamic "card" placement.

Edit mode is the least efficient at displaying thumbnails, since it is
dynamically compressing an extra-large image into a tiny space, and
takes visibly longer to finish loading than other types of pages.

Correct. Shows how little IMDb programmers know about web design. And seriously what does a 40px x 57px image do to a page except add a little color. It is so small it might as well not be there. Which is exactly the point.

I recently saw that no. of items shown in a list page, has increased from 100 to 250. I really want to thank and congratulate IMDb staff and management for this decision. This change has greatly reduced the toil and effort required to manage and maintain a very long list.

I would have preferred a customization through which I could show all items on one page, but nevertheless, this change still, is a huge relief, very big, and was long awaited and due. Thanks again.

Is there any plan to restore the drag-and-drop method of re-ordering items on a list?

The current/new way of numbering and then saving the new order is totally inefficient - you have to number and save and number and save several times to get a list of more than eight items in an order you want.

It's nearly impossible for a human to anticipate what the current sort algorithm will do, even when you understand it.

Col described their method here, and I replied with an example that shows how easily it fails.

I mentioned (at that post) that Information Science has studied the problem of sorting/merging extensively. But I'll bet most if not all academic articles on the subject deal with an objective, unchanging key by which the items should be sorted.

Hopefully IMDb staff are realizing that when we specify that we want an item to appear before the title currently at position n, they need to hang on to the actual title, not just the number n. Otherwise many combinations of moving more than one title at a time will fail.

I'm not sure why drag/drop is anathema now. Certainly the prior implementation was resource-consuming (poor response, wonky) with only 50 titles on a page. But if the Google Keep app on my Android phone can let me move editable text on a list just by hold/drag/drop, why can't a desktop webpage?